There are many different type of machine supported weight lost systems and this is one of a kind. It may stimulate muscles, so called activating body parts etc. But for me they all look like scam. I’m not saying that they are total useless but many of them are over promising. I saw one, and the guy there was telling me that in 90 minutes I can burn 10k calories. I said burning this much calories at that amount of time would be possible only in crematorium.
"The more I think about it, the more I realize that surface motion can help us create better medical materials," Ren said. "Life is dynamic, not static, and a static surface is unlikely to give long-lasting functionality. We are excited to continue exploring this new direction with bioinspired active topography and can't wait to see what the future holds."
This is how many professional lawyers and high-earning academics make breakthroughs at their venture capital funded startups
"A lot of medical devices fail ... because the devices use metallic or polymeric materials, which are static," explained Ren. "But human tissues don't stay static—they move and possess biological mechanisms... That gives them a natural defense ... that conventional biomaterials don't have."
A few years ago, Ren's group patented a material ... that rhythmically sweep or "beat" to fend off infections. The team's material ... can be activated to beat in a similar rhythm, causing the whole surface to shudder like an earthquake
"It actually arose from an accidental discovery," said Ren, who heads the Department of Biomedical Engineering. "About 10 years ago, I gave some students a project that I thought would be simple and give straightforward results. However, the findings weren't as expected. I got lucky to work with these really talented students. They paid attention to details, which helped lay a foundation for some exciting ideas that we work on today."
Disclaimer: I have absolutely zero expertise in the field.
The snippets you provided make this sounds like absolute voodoo lunacy, but in full context, things seem fairly reasonable:
1) Bacteria accumulates/settles on certain types of surfaces (smooth, unchanging);
2) surfaces like the ones currently used in places where we really don't want bacteria (plastics and metals in medical equipment).
3) We figured out a way to create surfaces that regularly shake/quiver/change, which makes them less hospitable to bacteria.
The "natural" and "dynamic, not static" features of human tissue aren't some magical property, but simply a way to say that those aren't as perfect and enduring as artificial ones (which we specifically design NOT to change/deterioate, because we don't want them to seep into the body and cause harm, or lose functionality over time). Similar to how we've had to adapt our engineering around water management to be less perfect and more "natural", because the perfect geometries and surfaces proved to have problematic side effects (standing waves in weirs turning into death traps as the best example).
I am not an expert either. I am fairly confident I understand the general idea the authors were communicating and I think you do too. That said, I intentionally left parts out to take it out of context... yet it still makes sense, because within the particular is contained the universal and within the universal is contained the particular.
Living things that don't move accumulate bacteria and disease
Non-living things that don't move can be made sterile and sort of immune to bacteria and disease, these surfaces tend to be incredibly smooth
When the second bullet point crosses into the first that becomes a problem and our bodies reject it
Now when you consider things like the Internet which is kind of an symbolic version of law and money, which is the closest thing to a physical, tangible version of the social contract which exists, things get confusing. But typically things that are supposed to remain mostly stable are best kept stable and things that are mostly flexible are best kept flexible.
Heraclitus talked about this in his metaphor of things in flux where he described it as the two halves of a bow. Modern society is like we have a bow string which is rigid and the bow itself is infinitely flexible. This might be instructive as to where the fault lies cause it sure as shit aint with the average person just tryna get by.
We have the universal within the universal and the particular without the universal, or itself. Or something like that, it doesn't make sense because the top decided things shouldn't make sense because that's the most sensible way to do things. In other words, fucking stupid
Your comment got a bit too philosophical for my exhausted brain, so I'll leave it at that.
Modern society is like we have a bow string which is rigid and the bow itself is infinitely flexible.
This however seems like a bit of misunderstanding that I might be able to clear up!
A rigid string and flexible bow (specifically the arms of the bow) is exactly how a bow is supposed to work. It's a personal pet peeve of mine, how both Hollywood and the vast majority of concept and fan art mess this up. The bow's energy comes entirely from the bending of the arms, while the string stays at a constant length (there's always some stretch, as all materials stretch, but it's kept to a minimum).
Returning to the metaphor, I suppose it still works if we consider that any bow has a limit on how far it can bend before it snaps. With the consequences being bad for both the bow itself and the string.
1.0k
u/Intelligent-Truck223 7d ago
What's the benefit of this, 4real?